session_get_user_actions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that sensitive fields are redacted, values are only captured during handover/takeover, and unprompted actions are still readable. It does not state side-effect characteristics, but the 'get' semantics and history focus make those less critical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, no fluff, and each sentence carries valuable context: what is returned, unprompted availability, cursor pagination, capture timing, and redaction. The most important statement is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: action kinds, element association, redaction, and cursor-based pagination. It does not spell out exact response fields, but for a read-only history getter the description provides enough detail for an agent to select and call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema: kinds examples, limit constraints, and cursor behavior. The description adds conceptual context like 'typed values, chosen options' and cursor-as-new-only, but it mostly reinforces what the schema already communicates, so no strong bump above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states exactly what the tool returns: user actions in the browser (clicks, typed values, chosen options, submissions) and the element each action touched. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it works whether or not it was prompted, making it readable even for unprompted help.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description gives clear usage context: use this when you need to see what the human did, even if you didn't explicitly ask. It also explains cursor usage for incremental reads. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the unprompted work note is strong enough guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.